Kamala Harris: Medicare for all, free pre-K, debt free college, $500 guaranteed pay increase

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,650
33,243
136
I think the real way to bring down the cost of higher education is to stop requiring every low-mid level corporate job to have a college degree. I have a coworker that works in this type of job and she does not have a degree, and she does absolutely fine. But there is no way she would ever be hired today without it.

I don't know how you do that though.
I read an article one of the reasons for the higher costs is much higher demand. In the 50s, 50s and 70s there were many jobs that paid well and only required a high school diploma. Automation and efficiency and phased out these jobs. Most of the higher paying jobs require college degrees pushing up demand.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You do a few things. You cut back the accreditation industry so that colleges and universities don't have to spend half their resources taking care of it and its related tasks. Simultaneously, you cut back on university level administrators. Many of our universities now spend more money on administration than they do on teaching and research faculty. Finally, you restore public funding of higher education to the same level it was at back in the 70s and 80s. That won't bring costs down completely. We simply run degree programs now that are more expensive than they were 50 years ago. High tech degrees such as engineering, robotics, and sciences require lots of expensive equipment. However, it will have a significant impact.

Yeah folks will say this until it's done and then freak out because the Dean makes a decision they don't like on a sexual assault case and then folks will yell about "why aren't there systems in place to protect victims!" Multiply this by hundreds of different use cases for any possible situation that students could find themselves in, and you're right back to 100s of admins. Same thing in government, many folks expect government to be involved in every aspect of their lives and never leave anyone to resolve things on their own without help from regulations if not some dedicated legislative pool of money and associated bureaucrats.

I think the real way to bring down the cost of higher education is to stop requiring every low-mid level corporate job to have a college degree. I have a coworker that works in this type of job and she does not have a degree, and she does absolutely fine. But there is no way she would ever be hired today without it.

I don't know how you do that though.

How about allowing employers to once again use IQ tests in hiring decisions since "must have college degree" has basically been used as a proxy for IQ tests ever since the SCOTUS prohibited the practice of using tests in 1971?
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
I think the real way to bring down the cost of higher education is to stop requiring every low-mid level corporate job to have a college degree. I have a coworker that works in this type of job and she does not have a degree, and she does absolutely fine. But there is no way she would ever be hired today without it.

I don't know how you do that though.
One way you could accomplish this is by increasing acceptance requirements into Universities, in essence decreasing the number of graduates. However, I fear if we tried this for profit universities would rush in and scoop up these students with their garbage degrees and predatory practices. Also, while I agree not every job that now requires a university degree actually requires a university degree, I think there are other benefits to having an educated population.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
Then fucking tell people that you imbecile.

Don't tell your voters "Were going to make the rich pay!" when the reality is that THEY (the voters) will be paying - and it will be a damn significant chunk out of their paycheck - which they are already complaining is too low.

I was going to respond to your post, but @Fanatical Meat already basically said what I was going to say. Between what I pay and my employer pays towards coverage, the overall effect on my paycheck could be nominal. Better than saying Mexico is going to pay for it and buying that bullshit hook line and sinker, right?
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,947
31,484
146
Your use of words and definitions are either incorrect or inaccurate. You're saying ALL your taxes -- taken from your paycheck are "payroll" taxes, but as I understand it, SS and Medicare are "payroll" taxes. With those two items, you are paying for something you might ordinarily PAY FOR if you were responsible for yourself and had the foresight to do it. Instead, we created those programs so that even those with a lack of foresight or even the MEANS would have a safety-net for old age and some health care.

Do you know the story of Ayn Rand? She must have squandered every penny she had. Apparently the royalties for her books didn't make her all that prosperous. Perhaps it was the drugs she abused. In those days, it probably wasn't the cigarettes, because they cost 25 cents a pack then.

But she developed lung-cancer, and couldn't afford medical care. Medicare had just become a reality. She was able to benefit from her husband's social security.

She was SO ASHAMED! She HATED the fact that her only salvation would come from Social Security and Medicare. But those programs took care of her in her last days.

Frankly, I think someone should've dropped her over Niagara Falls before she developed a limited following with her books. There is no Humanities department in the US that I know of which considers her a serious topic of study. Oh! All dem humanities departments -- literature, language, etc. -- dey all be soshaliss'!! Dem Librals would logically be found in de LIB-ER-AL ARTS programs, wouldn't dey! Tryin' to suck the precious bodily fluids out of students keen on languages. Languages are so soshaliss! Whas so impotent about great books and writing? You don't need to write! Get out there and make some money!

The Bitch never took a course in Economics or the other social sciences. Her "philosophy" derives from an education in the classic philosophy of the Ancients and she was big fan of Nietzsche. She got a free education through graduate "film school" in the USSR. Cecil B. DeMille made her his protégé, and that was the square she landed on when she came to America.

Perhaps she was bitter that her father's pharmacy was confiscated by the Bolsheviks, because she could no longer sneak into the back room and steal amphetamines and other wonderful brain vitamins.

A brilliant summation of the actual Ayn Rand and her grade-school "philosophy." It's interesting that GOPers seem to have a habit of latching onto the rantings of wackadoos that also have a serious drug dependency--anyone remember that Rush Limbaugh guy? I tend to think of Republicans as co-dependents.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
I think the real way to bring down the cost of higher education is to stop requiring every low-mid level corporate job to have a college degree. I have a coworker that works in this type of job and she does not have a degree, and she does absolutely fine. But there is no way she would ever be hired today without it.

I don't know how you do that though.

HR's primary role is to validate their own credentials & justify their existence. Your friend can expect them to squeeze her out with reorganization & layoffs. They'll redefine the qualifications for the "new" positions in order to do that.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
HR's primary role is to validate their own credentials & justify their existence. Your friend can expect them to squeeze her out with reorganization & layoffs. They'll redefine the qualifications for the "new" positions in order to do that.

She'll be okay, but it does limit her ability to move internally or find a job outside the firm.
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,126
282
136
She fucked and sucked her way to the top of the CA political food chain and has gone as far as that will take her. Next.
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,406
136
HR's primary role is to validate their own credentials & justify their existence. Your friend can expect them to squeeze her out with reorganization & layoffs. They'll redefine the qualifications for the "new" positions in order to do that.

Yup happened to me at ATT
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
She fucked and sucked her way to the top of the CA political food chain and has gone as far as that will take her. Next.
Ah, bless your heart, you must say that about all the successful women.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,954
3,944
136
So stop calling and advocating by saying the words "Free healthcare" or "Free college" or "free pre-k". It's not free. It's not free for the rich, it's not free for the middle class, and it's not free for the poor. Everyone will pay. Income taxes will increase all around.

Calling it free is not only misinformation, but it truly shows the IQ level of the voter base that is advocating such. Anytime someone advocates for enacting something that is as costly as increasing tax rates to pay for it should have to cite that in their stupid advertisement speeches

The 1.5T tax scam would have paid off every student loan. Since the tax scam did nothing but pad offshore accounts, it definitely would have been a bigger boost for the economy.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,295
2,391
136

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
It's silly to assume that 'debt free' college won't still be academic merit based.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,954
3,944
136
This is...not a good argument for keeping private health insurance. Also 2.5M for people working in health insurance alone sounds a touch high. Maybe all insurance.

An orderly phase out that moves those people who do work in the sector to new jobs in whatever program is approved would seem to be the best option.

Yep, the government would need a lot of people to process claims in a single-payer system. Sounds like a job opportunity for most of those folks.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,797
572
126
Kamala "Kameleon" Harris is basically Hillary Clinton 2.0

New and improved with even more minority cred and more leftward leaning positions. All the better to hook those pesky progressive kids we woulda installed our gal if it wasn't for them... dagnabit...

Sure she's better than Trump. And having to deal with San Francisco politics probably has made her a much better candidate. So she might even win.
Right now based on her record I am not convinced.... cause Mnuchin is an asshole who should have a felony on his record.


_____________
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,374
12,520
136
HR's primary role is to validate their own credentials & justify their existence. Your friend can expect them to squeeze her out with reorganization & layoffs. They'll redefine the qualifications for the "new" positions in order to do that.
Degree happy HR, don't get me started. Yea, I probably would not be where I am today if I was being hired with our current HR regime. Hey, they had to get a degree to get their job, so obviously you have to have one. You have no smarts with out magic paper documents. And the Federal government doubles down on it. Good luck getting past a GS 12.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,365
1,223
126
Until we all have unicorns to ride we'll be walking. Greed at the top precludes the investor class from hiring any more Americans than necessary to serve their ends. We already have a ruling class not answerable to the people because they've bent public perception to their purposes for decades. Your headset illustrates that rather well.

In no rational world does your "Let's make the government into Robin Hood" have a sustainable existence. You can believe in your Utopia of idiocracy all you wish, but having the government take way from the "less deserving" to give to the "more deserving" is a terrible idea.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,220
9,261
136
In no rational world does your "Let's make the government into Robin Hood" have a sustainable existence. You can believe in your Utopia of idiocracy all you wish, but having the government take way from the "less deserving" to give to the "more deserving" is a terrible idea.
The richest people in the solar system already use the government to give themselves money from the public coffers. They then call it TrickleDown™ Economics and you go and merrily vote for those people to keep doing it.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
As someone else pointed out below, not all insurance would disappear, just health insurance. About 460,000 people work in health insurance. Even with a single payer healthcare system, some people would most likely still pay for private health insurance, so not all those jobs would be lost. But you are correct, it is going to cost jobs. Same as it will if we ever cut back the size of the military to a more reasonable level. Same as it will for any kind of cost cutting measure. We probably wouldn't want to make this transition in the heart of a recession, but right now would actually be a great time with current employment as strong as it is.

As for property taxes, that is a local government issue. However, considering that property taxes are used to fund local services such as fire departments and police forces, it makes sense to me that there should be some level of taxation. Taxes are just part of being able to enjoy modern, civilized society.

As for cost of education, there are several facets. First, there is the issue of tuition. There are two primary drivers for this. One is the cost of administration, which is ballooning out of control because Americans are so distrusting of government. They are so afraid that faculty are just sitting in their ivory towers pondering the stars, and not providing good education, that we've developed these huge bureaucracies tasked with quantifying the quality of education. This has led to private, for profit education companies like Pearson that try to keep education dependent on their services. They push for ever stricter accreditation requirements for measuring that quality to try to drive universities to depend on these services. In addition to the growing number of administrators required to handle this extra load, the salaries of administrators have been ballooning as well.

The second issue contributing to rising tuition costs is a decrease in state funding. Across the nation, since about the 80's the percentage of a states budget appropriated for higher education has been steadily declining. It has made some moderate gains in many states since the recession, but is nowhere near where it once was.

Finally, there are housing costs. This part is a challenge to address, because on the one hand you have people griping about the costs of university housing being out of control because of luxurious dorm rooms with all the amenities. On the other hand, you have the issue that when schools build basic, no frills dorms as affordable housing options, they can't fill them.

I think there are lessons to be learned from other countries in the way they educate the workforce to make education more value added rather than corporate check the box hiring requirements.

For example, German/Swiss students tend to have a period of paid skilled internships/apprenticeships before University.

I also question the idea of a 4yr liberal arts BA degree as the only way to train STEM students when some of the required courses are general Ed unrelated to the major. Some countries finish in 3.

What does learning medieval English history have to do with becoming a chemist? Nothing, but the degree requires a number of credits. All told I had to do about a year's worth of credits. Now that tuition/housing is $50k/yr, that's an expensive history class.
 

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
8,292
5,370
146
Ah what was I saying? Oh right, not cutting taxes for the wealthy would be a great start to everything she, along with the vast majority of Democrats, want...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-leaders-push-new-tax-cut-exclusively-benefit-the-wealthy

Three Republican Senators introduced a plan Monday to repeal the federal estate tax, moving to eliminate a tax on a small number of the wealthiest households just as leading Democrats ramp up calls to tax the richest Americans.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-SD), members of the Senate Finance Committee, in releasing legislation to permanently repeal the federal estate tax, which conservatives refer to as “the death tax.”​

As things currently stand, the estate tax only applies to estates worth more than $22 million.